Dialogue with Uzbekistan To Continue Despite Loss of Air Base
01 August 2005
United States will continue to press concerns for human rights, democracy
Despite the Uzbek government’s request for the United States to leave the Karshi-Khanabad (K-2) air base within 180 days, dialogue between the two countries will continue on a variety of issues, acting State Department spokesman Tom Casey said at the regular State Department briefing August 1.
“Democracy and human rights, economic reform, military cooperation are all part of our relationship,” he said. “I think we’ve said previously that we do not view any of these elements as inimical to one another. We certainly expect that that dialogue will continue over time, regardless of the status of the base.”
The U.S. military has used the Uzbek base as one route of access to Afghanistan in the War on Terror. The Uzbek government has the right to terminate U.S. use of the base at anytime, under a bilateral agreement between the two countries, Casey said.
He emphasized that the United States still stands “fully behind the international community's calls for a full, credible and independent investigation” into the violence that took place in May in Andijan, Uzbekistan.
The United States also strongly advocates the transfer of 15 Uzbek refugees, who remain in neighboring Kyrgyzstan, to a third country for resettlement processing.
Casey noted that “whether the Uzbek Government does agree to an independent investigation into the incidents at Andijan” will be a factor in the pending decision whether or not to certify $22 million in aid to the Central Asian country.
Congress has legislated that for Uzbekistan to receive certain assistance, the secretary of state must certify that the Uzbek government is making progress in meeting the commitments toward human rights and democratization that it agreed to in the Declaration on Strategic Partnership and Cooperation Framework. That agreement was signed on March 12, 2002.
For more information, see Religious Freedom in Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan Examined and Rice Expresses Appreciation for Kyrgyzstan’s Transfer of Refugees.
Following is an excerpt from the State Department briefing:
(begin excerpt)
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing Index
Monday, August 01, 2005
1:00 p.m. EDT
Briefer: Tom Casey, Acting Spokesman
UZBEKISTAN
-- Request from Uzbek Government to Leave “K2” Airbase / U. S. Dialogue with Uzbekistan / Bilateral Agreement Regarding “K2” / International Community’s Call for Investigation into Events in Andijan / Uzbek Asylum Seekers in Kyrgyzstan / Democratic Reforms
-- Formal Notification of Decision Regarding Use of “K2” / Deadline for Decision on Certification
QUESTION: Uzbekistan first. Uzbekistan decided to close the U.S. base and it was – they said it was after the very vocal diplomacy – U.S. diplomacy supporting the refugees in Kyrgyzstan. So, I wanted to know if you have comment on that and also, we heard some rumors about a visit the Secretary would make to Bishkek at mid-August when the new Kyrgyz President will be sworn in. So, I would like to know if you can confirm that?
MR. CASEY: Okay. First things first. On Uzbekistan, let me repeat what I know some of you heard over the weekend, but we did receive a request from the Uzbek Government at the end of last week for the U.S. to leave the so-called K-2 airbase within 180 days. I don’t really – I would leave it to the government in Uzbekistan to talk about their motivations for this.
Obviously, if you’re asking me, though, about U.S. policy on human rights and democracy in Uzbekistan, I can assure you that the United States is going to continue to press our concerns for human rights and democracy in Uzbekistan. Democracy and human rights, economic reform, military cooperation are all part of our relationship. I think we’ve said previously that we do not view any of these elements as inimical to one another, but we’re going to continue to have a dialogue with the Government of Uzbekistan. We certainly expect that that dialogue will continue over time, regardless of the status of the base.
QUESTION: Don't you think it's a pity (inaudible) took the initiative and closed the bases? Why you -- why it's not U.S. who decided to close the bases --
MR. CASEY: Well, I think as we also told some of you over the weekend, this is a bilateral agreement between our two countries. Under the terms of that agreement, either country can choose to terminate it. And the Uzbeki Government has decided to exercise that option in the agreement. So this is certainly part of their right to do so.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Do you see any correlation between recent pressure that you've put on the government to conduct or allow an international independent investigation into the violence that happened a couple of months ago? And if you can talk about the trip that was supposed to be taken by Under Secretary Burns to discuss this matter.
MR. CASEY: Okay. First of all, again, I'd leave it up to the Government of Uzbekistan to describe their motivations for this decision. As you know, there had been a lot of back and forth, some of which predates the Andijan incident over the use of the base. I'd refer you over to the Pentagon for the specifics of the operational details on that. But again, I think it's very important to us that we stand fully behind the international community's calls for a full, credible and independent investigation into the events in Andijan. We still stand behind that. We are still calling for it. And that's the right thing for us to do.
We, as you know, spoke to officials both in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan and elsewhere, as well as folks from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees Office to try and arrange and help facilitate a solution to the refugee -- or the asylum seeker situation in Kyrgyzstan that met international standards. That, again, was the right thing for us to do. So we're pursuing our policy in terms of what's appropriate and what's right. And we will continue to have discussions with the Government of Uzbekistan, but we certainly aren't going to change our views on these subjects.
QUESTION: Did you feel that you were faced with the stark choice of kind of letting this slide and keeping the base?
MR. CASEY: Again, I don't think we view cooperation on the war on terror, cooperation on military-related issues, and continuing to engage the Government of Uzbekistan on our human rights and democracy concerns as incompatible with one another. When you look at the history of our engagement with Uzbekistan, part of it includes the agreements that was reached in 2002 under which the Uzbekistan Government undertook commitments to move forward towards democracy, towards free elections.
And so the issue of our desire to promote and push forward with democratic reforms in Uzbekistan has a longer history than just the last few months.
Teri.
MR. CASEY: Yeah. Let's go over here for a minute.
QUESTION: Just -- just after you complimented Kyrgyzstan in a statement about their treatment of the refugees, they've now said that 15 of them, they are going to send back to Uzbekistan. What's your reaction to that?
MR. CASEY: Yeah. Obviously, you saw the statement we issued last week and we were very glad to see the transfer of -- it turned out to be a total of 439 refugees to Romania. But we do remain concerned about the 15 that are still in Kyrgyzstan and we certainly hope that the Kyrgyz Republic will not return the remaining 15 asylum seekers to Uzbekistan where their safety, we believe, would be in serious jeopardy. We certainly hope instead that the Kyrgyz Government will transfer those 15 to a third country for resettlement processing and ensure that their human rights are fully protected.
QUESTION: Were these 15 not part of the -- I don't -- it's not an agreement with you, but part of your pressure on the Government of Kyrgyzstan, your diplomacy with the Government? Why were they left out?
MR. CASEY: We've been talking with the Government of Kyrgyzstan about all the individuals that were at that. I don't actually have additional details on these 15, but again, from our perspective, we believe they should be treated in the same way that the other 439 were and that they should be taken to a third country and -- for resettlement processing.
Sylvie?
QUESTION: What about Condi in Bishkek?
MR. CASEY: I haven't heard anything that would lead me to that conclusion.
QUESTION: Tom.
MR. CASEY: Yeah, David.
QUESTION: The way it seemed to come out on Friday, the Uzbek Government just basically informed you of this move in a note? Is that correct? And has there been any active discourse with them about it?
MR. CASEY: Well, again, this was a formal notification that was provided to us in the appropriate channel, which is through a diplomatic correspondence with the embassy at the end of last week. Obviously, use of the base, how U.S. troops operate at it, our ongoing arrangements for it, have been the subject of ongoing diplomatic discussions since we entered into the initial agreement. The Uzbek Government, as you know, had restricted some of the activities of the U.S. military at the base previously and certainly had given indications that they were considering such a move in the past. So in that sense, I don't think this was something that was either -- came as a complete surprise or was not the subject of ongoing discussions.
Yeah. Peter.
QUESTION: On the certification of Uzbekistan because there's $22 million in aid that's subject to certification. Our understanding was this decision had to be made some time in July or maybe just around now to get in for the budget process there. Is there any decision imminent? And does it look dimmer and dimmer that this -- that there would be certification for the $22 million?
MR. CASEY: Well, there actually is no specific deadline for a decision on certification to be made. My understanding is that this can be made at any time during the year. However, none of the money covered, and it is $22 million that is potentially covered by the legislative restrictions, can actually be expended until such time as a certification decision is reached. I don't want to try and preview that decision but I would simply say, as we've noted previously from this podium, that whether the Uzbek Government does agree to an independent investigation into the incidents at Andijan certainly is and will be a factor in that decision.
(end excerpt)
(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
